16 new pubmed citations were retrieved for your search. Click on the search hyperlink below to display the complete search results:

cancer treatment reviews

These pubmed results were generated on 2011/10/07

PubMed, a service of the National Library of Medicine, includes over 15 million citations for biomedical articles back to the 1950's. These citations are from MEDLINE and additional life science journals. PubMed includes links to many sites providing full text articles and other related resources.

Evidence-based Guideline Recommendations on the use of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging in Oesophageal Cancer.

Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2011 Sep 28;

Authors: Wong R, Walker-Dilks C, Raifu A

Abstract
AIMS: To provide evidence-based practice guideline recommendations on the use of fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for diagnosis, staging, assessing treatment response, liver metastasis and restaging or recurrence of oesophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review by Facey et al. (Health Technology Assessment 2007;11(44):iii-iv, xi-267) was used as the evidence base for recommendation development. As the review was limited to August 2005, the evidence base was updated to May 2010 using the same search strategies for MEDLINE and EMBASE used in the original review. The authors of the current systematic review drafted recommendations, which were reviewed, adapted and accepted by consensus by the Ontario provincial Gastrointestinal Disease Site Group and a special meeting of clinical experts. RESULTS: The results from the Facey et al. review for oesophageal cancer included four other systematic reviews and six primary studies. The 2005 to 2010 updated search included two additional systematic reviews and 29 primary studies. Recommendations were developed based on this evidence and accepted by consensus. CONCLUSIONS: PET is recommended to improve the accuracy of M staging for the staging work-up of patients with oesophageal cancer who are potential candidates for curative therapy. Due to insufficient evidence, no recommendation was made for or against the use of PET for the assessment of treatment response and the evaluation of suspected recurrence.

PMID: 21962904 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

19 new pubmed citations were retrieved for your search. Click on the search hyperlink below to display the complete search results:

cancer treatment reviews

These pubmed results were generated on 2011/10/02

PubMed, a service of the National Library of Medicine, includes over 15 million citations for biomedical articles back to the 1950's. These citations are from MEDLINE and additional life science journals. PubMed includes links to many sites providing full text articles and other related resources.

Is robotic technology facilitating the minimally invasive approach to partial nephrectomy?

BJU Int. 2011 Sep 21;

Authors: Dev HS, Sooriakumaran P, Stolzenburg JU, Anderson CJ

Abstract
Study Type - Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Open partial nephrectomy has been defined as the standard of care for the treatment of small renal masses. Robotic platforms may offer the solution to bridge the gap between open and laparoscopic approaches, providing similar oncological and functional results via a shorter learning curve. This study reviews the current literature, and reports developments in robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN). It highlights the important results from various studies which investigate the oncological and functional efficacy of RPN, and establishes its current status as at least equivalent to the laparoscopic approach. Trends are emerging that highlight the advantage of the robotic interface in facilitating this approach, and we postulate that this may become more apparent in future studies. OBJECTIVES: •  Partial nephrectomy has become the standard therapy for the management of small renal masses. In an effort to overcome the perioperative morbidity associated with an open approach, and the extended warm ischaemia times associated with a laparoscopic approach, robotic platforms have been introduced. To establish its current status this study reviews the literature, and reports developments in robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN), highlighting results from various studies that investigate the oncological and functional efficacy of RPN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: •  A search of Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases was completed in July 2010 and used to identify pertinent original articles, editorials, comments and reviews, using the search term 'partial nephrectomy'. Links to related references were surveyed, and all articles finally included were based on relevance and importance of content, as determined by the authors. RESULTS: •  The robotic platform may offer the solution to bridge the gap between open and laparoscopic approaches, achieving warm ischaemia times that consistently average 20 minutes, and providing similar oncological and functional results via a shorter learning curve. It offers cosmesis and convalescence equivalent to that from laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, but with potentially fewer postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: •  In terms of oncological and functional outcomes, the early experiences of RPN in selected series of patients appear at least equivalent to open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy series. Randomized comparisons between the approaches are lacking, as are longer-term follow-up data for the robotic technique and formal cost analysis; these will be necessary before RPN can replace open partial nephrectomy as the new standard for the management of small renal masses. Trends continue to emerge that highlight the advantage of using the robotic platform to achieve a minimally invasive approach for partial nephrectomy, and with time and increasing expertise, this may become further apparent.

PMID: 21939489 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of genotyping for CYP2D6 for the management of women with breast cancer treated with tamoxifen: a systematic review.

Health Technol Assess. 2011 Sep;15(33):1-102

Authors: Fleeman N, Martin Saborido C, Payne K, Boland A, Dickson R, Dundar Y, Fernández Santander A, Howell S, Newman W, Oyee J, Walley T

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women in the UK. Tamoxifen (TAM) is considered as the standard of care for many women with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer. However, wide variability in the response of individuals to drugs at the same doses may occur, which may be a result of interindividual genetic differences (pharmacogenetics). TAM is known to be metabolised to its active metabolites N-desmethyl TAM and 4-hydroxytamoxifen by a number of CYP450 enzymes, including CYP2D6, CYP3A4, CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP2B6. N-desmethyl TAM is further metabolised to endoxifen by CYP2D6. Endoxifen, which is also formed via the action of CYP2D6, is 30- to 100-fold more potent than TAM in suppressing oestrogen-dependent cell proliferation, and is considered an entity responsible for significant pharmacological effects of TAM. Thus, an association between the cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) genotype and phenotype (expected drug effects) is believed to exist and it has been postulated that CYP2D6 testing may play a role in optimising an individual's adjuvant hormonal treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not testing for cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) polymorphisms in women with early hormone receptor positive breast cancer leads to improvement in outcomes, is useful for health decision-making and is a cost-effective use of health-care resources.
DATA SOURCES: Relevant electronic databases and websites including MEDLINE, EMBASE and HuGENet [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Office of Public Health Genomics), Human Genome Epidemiology Network] were searched until July 2009. Further studies that became known to the authors via relevant conferences or e-mail alerts from an automatically updated search of the Scopus database were also included as the review progressed, up to March 2010.
REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CYP2D6 testing was undertaken. As it was not possible to conduct meta-analyses, data were extracted into structured tables and narratively discussed. An exploratory analysis of sensitivity and specificity was undertaken. A review of economic evaluations and models of CYP2D6 testing for patients treated with TAM was also carried out.
RESULTS: A total of 25 cohorts were identified which examined clinical efficacy (overall survival and relapse/recurrence), adverse events and endoxifen plasma concentrations by genotype/phenotype. Significantly, six cohorts suggest extensive metabolisers (Ems) appear to have better outcomes than either poor metabolisers (PMs) or PMs + intermediate metabolisers in terms of relapse/recurrence; however, three cohorts report apparently poorer outcomes for EMs (albeit not statistically significant). There was heterogeneity across the studies in terms of the patient population, alleles tested and outcomes used and defined. One decision model proposing a strategy for CYP2D6 testing for TAM was identified, but this was not suitable for developing a model to examine the cost-effectiveness of CYP2D6 testing. It was not possible to produce a de novo model because of a lack of data to populate it.
CONCLUSION: This is a relatively new area of research that is evolving rapidly and, although international consortia are collaborating, the data are limited and conflicting. Therefore, it is not possible to recommend pharmacogenetic testing in this patient population. Future research needs to focus on which alleles (including, or in addition to, those related to CYP2D6) reflect patient response, the link between endoxifen levels and clinical outcomes, and the appropriate pathways for implementation of such pharmacogenetic testing in patient care pathways.
FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

PMID: 21906462 [PubMed - in process]